Smt. Uma Sharma And Another vs Rajendra Singh And 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3811 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5348 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Uma Sharma And Another
 
Respondent :- Rajendra Singh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

The order dated 06.10.2016 passed on application 3 Ga registered as Misc. Case No.13 of 2016 arising out of Motor Accident Claim tribunal No.149 of 2011 (Smt. Usha Sharma & another Vs. Rajendra Singh & others) is under challenge in the present petition.

The petitioners are claimants in the claim petition which was allowed vide judgement and order dated 26.5.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal namely Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bijnor. An amount of Rs. 3,28,500/- with simple interest of 6% per annum till the date of payment was awarded against the insurance company. The total compensation awarded was apportioned between four persons namely the claimants/petitioners i.e. wife and son of the deceased and his old parents. An amount of Rs.1,78,500 with simple interest fell in the share of wife/petitioner no.1 whereas Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded in favour of petitioner no.2 son of the victim. Out of the total share of petitioner no.1, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was directed to be deposited in a fixed deposit account for a period of ten years with the direction that the interest amount would be released in her favour periodically towards her daily expenditures, however, only an amount of Rs.28,500/- was directed to be released immediately. Total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of the share of petitioner no.2 was directed to be invested for five years in a fixed deposit account of nationalized bank. It is specifically stated in the present petition that the award passed by the Tribunal dated 26.5.2014 has not been challenged in appeal.

An application dated 14.3.2016 with the prayer of release of compensation money was moved by the petitioners/claimants with the assertion that they needed the same for repair and extension of their house. It was stated therein that the residential house of the petitioners/claimants was in a dilapidated condition. The said application has been rejected vide order impugned dated 6.10.2016 with the reasoning that no detail of expenditure had been given with regard to the alleged repair work, the fixed deposit receipts were issued on 29.1.2015 and the date of maturity thereof are 29.1.2025 and 29.1.2020.

This order is under challenge in the present petition with the specific assertion that there was no justification for rejection of the application for premature release of FDR. The petitioners are facing financial crunch and they have no source of income. The petitioner no.2 is an unemployed person and he is preparing for the competitive examination whereas the petitioner no.1 is a household lady who has no source of income. The house of the petitioners had been dilapidated and they have no money to renovate their old house. The life of the petitioners are in danger, they cannot be forced to live in a dilapidated house.

As far as premature release of fixed deposit, no other persons except the claimants would suffer by such release as they would not get interest on the money invested.

The guidelines for investment have been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others reported in 1994 2 SCC 176. The guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted case, have been incorporated by the legislature under Rule 220-B of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. The purpose of framing these guidelines is to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded i.e. to ensure that the money may not be misutilized. Such investment is to be directed by the tribunals after examining each case on its merit.

Distinction has been made out by the legislature therein in the light of the directions of the Apex Court, in the case of minor, illiterate claimants, semi-literate persons and literate persons, though it has been directed that investment and release of compensation money shall not be done in a routine manner. The direction to invest compensation money awarded to a minor and illiterate person is with an object to provide them financial assistance at the time of their genuine need and to provide them with some kind of financial security. In the case of minor the invested money can be released for the need of his education, maintenance and development. Similarly in the case of an illiterate persons release can be directed for purchases of any property of the family or for improving the income of the claimants. In the case of semi-literate and literate persons, however the investment has to be made looking to the need of the person concerned and the release would always be subject to the discretion of the Claims tribunals.

In another case of A.V. Padma and Ors. Vs. R. Venugopal and Ors. reported in 2012(3) SCC 378, noticing the fact that the directions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport (supra) were not being followed by the Claim tribunals in letter and spirit, the Apex Court has observed that sufficient discretion has been given to the tribunals not to direct for investment of the compensation amount in long term deposit or to release even the whole amount in the interest of the claimants. However, the Tribunals are often taking very rigid stand and in a mechanical manner ordering in almost all cases, for investment of the compensation in long term fixed deposits. It has further been observed by the Apex Court that the said guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merit. Where there is a possibility of chance of misuse of the invested money by any other person except the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of compensation money in long term fixed deposit shall be directed. Such directions/orders issued by the tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner are result of ignoring the object and spirit of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport (supra) and the genuine requirement of the claimants. It is further observed by the Apex Court that the Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of compensation money in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines framed by the Apex Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term deposit and under no circumstances, the Tribunals can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. A word of 'caution' has been added by the Apex Court by asking the Tribunals for change their attitude and approach in this regard to meet the ends of justice.

In the light of the above legal position having examined the facts of the instant case, it is found that the Tribunal had proceeded to invest the share of claimants/petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in long term deposits of 10 years and 5 years; respectively, in a mechanical manner. From the disclosure made in the claim petition, it appears that the claimant no.1 was aged about 40 years whereas the claimant no.2 was of about 19 years in the year 2011. Thus on the date of passing of the award i.e. 26.5.2014, the claimant no.2 was also major. The entire compensation money awarded in favour of the claimant no.2 was directed to be invested in five yearly fixed deposit whereas a bare minimum amount of Rs.28,500/- was directed to be released in favour of petitioner no.1, wife of the deceased.

A categorical assertion has been made by the claimants/petitioners in the release application that they did not have enough money for restoration/construction of their residential house. The claimant no.2 is still studying, the claimant no.1 has no source of income except the interest amount which she is getting from the invested compensation money of approximately Rs.1,50,000/- periodically. In these days of inflation, Rs. 1,00,000/- can not be said to be a huge investment. The claimant might be needing money for education/establishment of son of the deceased namely claimant no.2 who is unemployed. At the same time, this Court finds that in this case, the Claim tribunal had directed for investment of the entire/major portion of compensation money in fixed deposit schemes of relatively long period of five years and ten years; respectively without adverting to the need of the claimants.

Similarly, the application for release of invested money for the need shown by the claimants, has also been rejected in a mechanical manner. This exercise of discretion by the Claim tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be justified as the order in this regard had been passed in a routine manner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 6.10.2016 passed by the Claim Tribunal in Misc. Case No.13 of 2016 arising out of Motor Accident Claim tribunal No.149 of 2011 (Smt. Usha Sharma & another Vs. Rajendra Singh & others) cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside.

The present petition is allowed with the direction to the Claim Tribunal to consider the application for release moved by the petitioners on 14.3.2016 keeping in mind the need shown by them. The petitioners, however, would be entitled for release of the amount as prayed by them, subject to an enquiry made by the tribunal regarding the appeal if any, filed by the insurance company.

The tribunal shall direct to release the compensation money along with interest so accrued after satisfying itself about the identity of the claimants. An expeditious decision in accordance with law shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order keeping in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager (supra) and A.V. Padma and others (supra).

This Court before parting with this judgement, is constrained to observe that Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are regularly being filed by the claimants challenging the orders of rejection of application for release of compensation money. In same matters, prayer for release of money was made to meet expenses of marriage of daughter of the deceased, education of minor child, emergency expenses to be incurred by widow of the deceased. In all such matters, however, the applications for release of the compensation money had been rejected by the Claim Tribunals either on the ground that the FDR could not be liquidated as the date of maturity was far away or on the ground that no satisfactory reason had been given by the claimant for release of invested compensation money. This Court has not come across a single case where there has been a real application of mind of the Claims tribunals on the claim of release of invested money.

In no case, the status of the applicants, whether they are illiterate, semi-literate or literate  person, had been examined by the tribunals before issuing direction for investment in long terms scheme or rejection of release application. The directions for investment of the compensation money in long term deposit schemes are also being issued by the tribunals in routine manner.

In almost every case, the prayer for release of the invested compensation money to the claimant has been rejected on trivial grounds. The Tribunals appear to think that they do not have power to allow for premature liquidation of FDR. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants who have to approach this Court to challenge the orders of rejection of their application for release. The delay in payment of compensation amount may also expose the claimants to serious prejudice and, moreover, they have to spent a reasonable amount for payment of advocates fee for approaching the higher court which added to further hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals cannot loose sight of the said aspect of the matter. The mechanical approach adopted by the Claims tribunals is causing material injustice to the claimants and cannot be approved of. The present case is one of such instances only.

The Claims tribunals have, thus, utterly failed to follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the above noted judgments (A.V. Padma and General Manager) as also the guidelines notified under Rule 220-B of Rules, 1998. The attitude and method adopted by the Claims tribunals in dealing with these matters, is a result of serious failure in exercise of their discretion in a judicious manner.

It is emphasized that a change in attitude and approach on the part of the Presiding Officers discharging the function of Claims tribunals is very much required in the interest of justice (as observed by the Apex Court in A.V. Padma & others (supra).

The Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, is directed to circulate this judgment to the District Judges of the judgeships in the State of U.P. who shall circulate it amongst the Presiding officers having jurisdiction of Claims tribunals for effective compliance.

In view of the above observations and directions, the present petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 30.8.2017

Savita